SynthesisOpen heart2026
Utility of biomarkers in patients with a type 2 myocardial infarction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Contemporary Challenges and Strategies for Diagnosing and Managing in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating type 1 myocardial infarctions (T1MI) from type 2 myocardial infarctions (T2MI) can be challenging based on clinical variables alone. This review aimed to explore the utility of novel and traditional biomarkers to discriminate between these entities and potentially provide additional prognostic information.
methodsA systematic review of observational studies and randomised controlled trials that examined the discriminatory or prognostic roles of either traditional cardiac biomarkers (troponin, creatine kinase or b-type natriuretic peptide) or non-traditional biomarkers. Data sources included PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov and were last searched on 15 November 2024. The diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers and prognostic utility of identified biomarkers are narratively reported.
results31 studies with 16 111 individuals with a T2MI were included. Most studies (97%) demonstrated moderate or severe risk of bias. Of studies that examined traditional cardiac biomarkers (n=13), the ability to discriminate between T2MI and T1MI ranged from an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.61-0.71. Studies that added traditional cardiac biomarkers to clinical variables (n=4) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy AUC 0.71-0.82. Studies exploring non-traditional biomarkers, metabolic and proteomic profiles (n=14) demonstrated a wide range of diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.50-0.77). Traditional cardiac biomarkers inconsistently demonstrated a correlation with subsequent cardiovascular events. The prognostic utility of non-traditional biomarkers was infrequently assessed.
conclusionThe role of biomarkers, metabolic and proteomic profiles in the diagnosis and prognostication of T2MI remains unclear. Higher quality studies and refining the classification of T2MI may improve this further. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023418095.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.